Dr. Niels G. Mede

Science Communication Researcher

Science-related populism: Conceptualizing populist demands toward science


Journal article


Niels G. Mede, Mike S. Schäfer
Public Understanding of Science, vol. 29(5), 2020, pp. 473-491


Cite

Cite

APA   Click to copy
Mede, N. G., & Schäfer, M. S. (2020). Science-related populism: Conceptualizing populist demands toward science. Public Understanding of Science, 29(5), 473–491. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662520924259


Chicago/Turabian   Click to copy
Mede, Niels G., and Mike S. Schäfer. “Science-Related Populism: Conceptualizing Populist Demands toward Science.” Public Understanding of Science 29, no. 5 (2020): 473–491.


MLA   Click to copy
Mede, Niels G., and Mike S. Schäfer. “Science-Related Populism: Conceptualizing Populist Demands toward Science.” Public Understanding of Science, vol. 29, no. 5, 2020, pp. 473–91, doi:10.1177/0963662520924259.


BibTeX   Click to copy

@article{mede2020a,
  title = {Science-related populism: Conceptualizing populist demands toward science},
  year = {2020},
  issue = {5},
  journal = {Public Understanding of Science},
  pages = {473-491},
  volume = {29},
  doi = {10.1177/0963662520924259},
  author = {Mede, Niels G. and Schäfer, Mike S.}
}

Populism is on the rise in many countries. Scholars have stated that it is characteristic for political populism to describe society as a fundamental struggle between an allegedly virtuous people and political elites which are portrayed negatively. This anti-elitist sentiment not only targets politicians, however, but also other representatives of the alleged establishment—including scientists and scholarly institutions. But the specifics of such science-related populism have not yet been conceptualized. We aim to do so, integrating scholarship on political populism, the “participatory turn,” and alternative epistemologies. We propose to conceptualize science-related populism as a set of ideas which suggests that there is a morally charged antagonism between an (allegedly) virtuous ordinary people and an (allegedly) unvirtuous academic elite, and that this antagonism is due to the elite illegitimately claiming and the people legitimately demanding both science-related decision-making sovereignty and truth-speaking sovereignty.